Arkansas parents file lawsuit over state law requiring Ten Commandments in schools
Seven Arkansas families with children in public schools filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday to block the implementation of a new state law requiring the Ten Commandments be displayed in classrooms.
Northwest Arkansas parents and their minor children who identify as Jewish, Unitarian Universalist, Humanist, agnostic, atheist and nonreligious filed the complaint Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas against the Fayetteville, Springdale, Bentonville and Siloam Springs school districts.
The plaintiffs are asking a judge to declare the law unconstitutional and are seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent the school districts from complying with the law, according to the complaint.
Act 573 of 2025 requires that 'a durable poster or framed copy of a historical representation of the Ten Commandments' be 'prominently' displayed in public school classrooms and libraries, public institutions of higher education, and public buildings and facilities maintained by taxpayer funds.
According to the law, posters shall be donated or purchased with funds through voluntary contributions to a local school board, building governing entity or the Building Authority Division. Posters that don't meet specifications required by the law may be replaced with public funds or private donations.
In a statement, plaintiff Samantha Stinson said that as American Jews, she and her husband 'deeply value the ability to raise our children in our faith, without interference from the government.' Fellow plaintiff Carol Vella agreed, noting that her children are among a small number of Jewish students at their school.
'The classroom displays required by Act 573 will make them feel like they don't belong simply because they don't follow the government's favored religion,' she said. 'The displays will also violate core Jewish tenets, which emphasize tolerance and inclusion and prohibit evangelizing others.'
The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation, with Simpson Thacher Barlett serving as pro bono counsel, according to a press release.
The complaint alleges Act 573 violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, which guarantees that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,' and its Free Exercise Clause, which guarantees that 'Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].'
'As a result of the Ten Commandments displays mandated by Act 573, Arkansas students—including the minor-child Plaintiffs—will be unconstitutionally coerced into religious observance, veneration, and adoption of the state's favored religious scripture, and they will be pressured to suppress their personal religious beliefs and practices, especially in school, to avoid the potential disfavor, reproach, and/or disapproval of school officials and/or their peers,' the complaint states.
By mandating a Protestant version of the Ten Commandments be displayed, 'Act 573 adopts an official position on religious matters, violating the Establishment Clause's prohibition against taking sides in questions over theological doctrine,' according to the complaint.
In a statement, Americans United for Separation of Church and State President and CEO Rachel Laser said the Constitution's guarantee of the separation of church and state means families, not politicians, decide if and how public school children engage with religion.
Federal judge considers letting Arkansas Supreme Court rule first on 10 Commandments monument case
'This law is part of the nationwide Christian Nationalist scheme to win favor for one set of religious views over all others and nonreligion — in a country that promises religious freedom. Not on our watch,' Laser said.
Sen. Jim Dotson, R-Bentonville, and Rep. Alyssa Brown, R-Heber Springs, sponsored Act 573, but the merits of the legislation were largely presented in committee hearings by WallBuilders, a group 'emphasizing the moral, Christian, and constitutional foundation on which our nation was built,' according to its website.
Supporters of the measure emphasized the Ten Commandments as a historical document, an argument rejected in Wednesday's complaint.
'This nation's core founding documents — the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights — were not based on the Ten Commandments, and there is no longstanding history or tradition of prominently and permanently displaying the Ten Commandments in public-school classrooms,' the complaint states.
The complaint cites longstanding court precedent, including Stone v. Graham, a 1980 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Kentucky law mandating classroom displays of the Ten Commandments as unconstitutional.
A federal district court ruled last year that a Louisiana law similar to Act 573 violates the First Amendment. Plaintiffs in that case, which is on appeal, are represented by the same counsel as the Arkansas lawsuit, according to the press release.
Plaintiffs in the Arkansas case plan to file a motion for preliminary injunction, which will ask the court to issue an order temporarily preventing implementation of the law, set to take effect Aug. 5, while the lawsuit is pending, according to the release.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
42 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
‘He's trying to rig the election.' Newsom bashes Trump as redistricting campaign kicks off
SACRAMENTO — Moments after California lawmakers passed a plan designed to undercut attempts by the president and fellow Republicans to keep control of Congress, Gov. Gavin Newsom said the state's proposed partisan redistricting that favors Democrats is a necessary counterweight to President Trump's threat to American democracy. Trump's assault on vote by mail and decision to send the military into U.S. cities are evidence of his authoritarian policies, and California must do its part to keep him in check, Newsom said. By deploying federal immigration agents in roving street raids and activating thousands of members of the National Guard in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., Newsom said, Trump is amassing 'a private army for Donald Trump.' 'He's trying to rig the election, he's trying to set up the conditions where he can claim that the elections were not won fair and square,' Newsom said. 'Open your eyes to what is going on in the United States of America in 2025.' The argument is a preview of the messaging for the ballot measure campaign that Newsom and his Democratic Party allies will be running over the next 74 days. On Thursday, California lawmakers signed off on a Nov. 4 special election that will put partisan redistricting in front of California voters. The ballot measure, called Proposition 50, will ask voters to discard the congressional boundaries drawn by the state's independent redistricting commission in 2021 in favor of partisan districts that could boot as many as five California Republicans out of Congress. 'When all things are equal, and we're all playing by the same set of rules,' Newsom said, 'there's no question that the Republican Party will be the minority party in the House of Representatives next year.' California is 'responding to what occurred in Texas, we're neutralizing what occurred, and we're giving the American people a fair chance,' Newsom said. National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Rep. Richard Hudson of North Carolina accused Newsom of trying to 'rig' the system to advance his own political career. 'Instead of fixing the homelessness, crime, drug, and cost crises crushing the Golden State, Gavin Newsom is tearing up California's Constitution to advance his presidential ambitions,' Hudson said in a statement. California's new lines would neutralize efforts in Texas to redraw their congressional district maps to help elect five more GOP candidates in 2026. The Texas Legislature is expected to approve new district lines this week. The other option, Newsom said, is for California and Democrats to 'roll over and do nothing.' 'I think people all across the country are going to campaign here in California for this,' Newsom said. 'They recognize what's at stake. It's not just about the state of California. It's about the United States of America. It's about rigging the election. It's about completely gutting the rules.' Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Trump Budget Office Is Withholding H.I.V. Funds That Congress Appropriated
The Trump administration is ignoring a directive from Congress and refusing to fully fund a landmark H.I.V. program that is widely credited with saving millions of lives over the past two decades. The Office of Management and Budget, headed by Russell T. Vought, has apportioned only $2.9 billion of $6 billion appropriated by Congress for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief in the 2025 fiscal year spending bill, according to budget documents and members of the program's staff. PEPFAR, as the program is known, was created in 2003, during the George W. Bush administration, to provide funding for H.I.V. prevention and treatment to low-income countries. It has long enjoyed broad bipartisan support and is often cited as the most effective public health campaign ever, credited with saving an estimated 26 million lives. In July, the Trump administration withdrew a proposed $400 million rescission from PEPFAR's budget in the face of bipartisan Senate opposition. But that fight was a distraction, according to staff members who work on the program, because, they said, they have repeatedly been told by Mr. Vought's budget office that the program would be receiving only about half of the $6 billion appropriated by Congress for the 2025 fiscal year, even with that $400 million restored. That cut is visible in budget documents that appear on a federal website tracking the activity of the White House Office of Management and Budget. The Trump administration took that website offline in January, but it was restored late last week after a court order. Whether the executive branch can withhold money appropriated by Congress has been a focus of a number of legal battles since the President Trump took office vowing to slash government spending and terminate many foreign aid programs. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Judge says former Trump lawyer Alina Habba has been unlawfully serving as U.S. attorney in New Jersey
WILLIAMSPORT, Pa. — A federal judge ruled Thursday that President Trump's former lawyer, Alina Habba, has been unlawfully serving as the the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey. The court, saying the administration used 'a novel series of legal and personnel moves,' held that Habba's term as the interim U.S. attorney ended in July, and the Trump administration's maneuvers to keep her in the role without getting confirmation from the U.S. Senate didn't follow procedures required by federal law. 'Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,' Chief U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann wrote. The opinion says that Habba's actions since July 'may be declared void.' Brann, a President Obama appointee, said he's putting his order on hold pending an appeal. It wasn't immediately clear if that meant Habba would remain in charge of the U.S. attorney's office. A message seeking comment was sent to Habba's office Thursday. The Justice Department said it intends to appeal the ruling. Brann's decision comes in response to a filing on behalf of New Jersey defendants challenging Habba's tenure and the charges she was prosecuting against them. They sought to block the charges against them, arguing that Habba didn't have the authority to prosecute the case after her 120-day term as interim U.S. attorney expired in July. The defendants' motion to block Habba, a onetime White House advisor to President Trump and his former personal defense attorney, is another high-profile chapter in her short tenure. She made headlines when Trump named her U.S. attorney for New Jersey in March. She said the state could 'turn red,' a rare, overt political expression from a prosecutor, and said she planned to investigate the state's Democratic governor and attorney general. She then brought a trespassing charge, which was eventually dropped, against Newark Mayor Ras Baraka stemming from his visit to a federal immigration detention center. Habba later charged Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver with assault stemming from the same incident, a rare federal criminal case against a sitting member of Congress other than for corruption. She denies the charges and has pleaded not guilty. Volatility over her tenure unfolded in late July when the four-month temporary appointment was coming to a close and it became clear that she would not get support from home state Sens. Cory Booker and Andy Kim, both Democrats, effectively torpedoing her chances of Senate approval. The president withdrew her nomination. Around the same time, federal judges in New Jersey exercised their power under the law to replace Habba with a career prosecutor when Habba's temporary appointment lapsed, but Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi fired that prosecutor and renamed Habba as acting U.S. attorney. In his opinion, Brann questioned the legal moves the administration conducted to keep Habba in place. 'Taken to the extreme, the President could use this method to staff the United States Attorney's office with individuals of his personal choice for an entire term without seeking the Senate's advice and consent,' he wrote. The Justice Department has said in filings that the judges acted prematurely and that the executive has the authority to appoint his preferred candidate to enforce federal laws in the state. Trump had formally nominated Habba as his pick for U.S. attorney on July 1, but Booker and Kim's opposition meant that under long-standing Senate practice known as senatorial courtesy, the nomination would stall out. A handful of other Trump picks for U.S. attorney are facing a similar circumstance. Catalini writes for the Associated Press.
